lable at ScienceDirect

Applied Geography 53 (2014) 77e89

Contents lists avai

Applied Geography

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/apgeog

Assessing the value of public lands using public participationGIS (PPGIS) and social landscape metrics

Greg Brown a, *, Delene Weber b, Kelly de Bie c, d

a School of Geography, Planning, and Environmental Management, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australiab Barbara Hardy Institute, School of NBE, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, SA 5085, Australiac School of Botany, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australiad Parks Victoria, 535 Bourke St, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia

Keywords:Public landsSocial metricsPublic participationPPGISPlace values

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: greg.brown@uq.edu.au (G. Brow

au (D. Weber), khun@unimelb.edu.au (K. de Bie).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.06.0060143-6228/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Public lands provide a wide range of valuesdecological, socio-cultural, and economicdbut systematicmethods to assess the social and cultural values of public lands are underdeveloped. In this study, wepresent a method that uses public participation GIS (PPGIS) to identify and quantify the social andcultural values associated with different types of public land, ranging from national parks and reserves, tomultiple-use lands. In 2014, we conducted a PPGIS study to identify public land values in Victoria,Australia. Over 35,000 landscape value and land use preference locations were mapped by study par-ticipants (n ¼ 1905). We analyzed the spatial data for association with public land type, IUCN classifi-cation, and an agency level management system. We generated social landscape metrics to quantifyvalues by individual public land units based on value abundance, richness, diversity, and the potential formanagement conflict. We found statistically significant associations between values and public land type,IUCN protected area classification, and management level of protection. The social landscape metricsindicate that the most highly valued public lands (national parks) have the greatest potential for man-agement conflict, but also reveal several less iconic public lands as having high potential for managementconflict. We discuss the strengths and limitations of the PPGIS methods in the study and provide sug-gestions to improve the process for future assessments of social and cultural values associated withpublic lands.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Public lands provide a vast array of environmental, social, andeconomic benefits to society. While much work has been dedicatedto economic valuation, there has been little systematic research toassess the social and cultural values attributable to public landsacross the range of different public land types. These less tangiblevalues of public lands are considered to be undervalued despitesuggestions they are likely more important to the general publicthan many material values associated with public lands (Harmon&Putney, 2003). The true value of public lands should account formultiple, interacting values including environmental services,personal values associated with learning, the psychological benefitsof visiting a site, the cultural and spiritual values associated with

n), delene.weber@unisa.edu.

particular landscapes, and the social value of bringing families andfriends together through recreation.

Typical categories of public lands include forests, national parks,wilderness areas, historic areas, and nature reserves. The quantity,structure, regulations, and management of public lands vary bycountry, and often states or regions within countries. However, thesize of the public land estate in many countries is significant. Forexample public lands comprise 23% of terrestrial land area inAustralia (Geoscience Australia, 2014), and in the United States, thecombined total of federal and state-owned public land encom-passes 35% of total land area (NRCM, 2014). The majority of publicland focused research has been directed at single units of publiclands, most commonly protected areas, which comprise nearly 15%of world's land area (WDPA, 2014). Yet protected areas only accountfor 9.5% of federal public lands in the United States (Gorte, HardyVincent, Hanson, & Rosenblum, 2012) and 34.3% of public landsin Australia (Geoscience Australia, 2014). The absence of a globalframework that defines types of public lands has restricted re-searchers' ability to compare public land values across countries

G. Brown et al. / Applied Geography 53 (2014) 77e8978

and regions. Unlike the broader category of public lands, there is aninternationally recognized system for classifying protected areasbased on management objectives (Dudley, 2008; IUCN, 1994). Thissystem developed by the International Union for the Conservationof Nature (IUCN) consists of six categories ranging from Class Ia(strict nature reserve) to Class VI (managed resource protectedarea) and is intended to assist in the establishment and manage-ment of protected areas. While the conservation of biological di-versity is a desirable management outcome for all categories, thesystem recognizes that protected areas categories provide fordifferent mixes of ecosystem values. For example, national parks(Category II) statutorily provide for both natural and historicpreservation as well as public recreational use. Although the IUCNclassification provides a useful tool to assist in some public landresearch, it is limited by its intended purpose, as are other toolsdeveloped by management agencies to classify and manage theirholdings, such as the Levels of Protection system developed by ParksVictoria in Australia. How to assess and measure the value of publiclands that is applicable across a range of public land units remains achallenge that we address in this paper.

One approach to measuring the value of public lands is throughthe ecosystem services framework. This framework expresses theimportance of landscapes in three value domainsdecological,socio-cultural, and economic (De Groot et al., 2010; MA, 2003). Theecological and economic valuation domains have received consid-erable research attention with development of a range of evalua-tion criteria. For example, the ecological value of ecosystems can beassessed using such criteria as species richness, diversity, or rarity,while the contribution of an area to a larger network can beassessed on the basis of representativeness and complementarity(Bonn & Gaston, 2005; Margules, Nicholls, & Pressey, 1988;Margules & Pressey, 2000; Myers, Mittermeier, Mittermeier, DaFonseca, & Kent, 2000; Pressey, Humphries, Margules, Vane-Wright, & Williams, 1993; Pressey, Johnson, & Wilson, 1994;Smith & Theberge, 1986). The economic value of ecosystems in-volves translating selected ecosystem services into monetaryvalues through methods such as value transfer, hedonic analysis,spatial modeling, and contingent valuation (see e.g., Costanza et al.,2006; Loomis, Kent, Strange, Fausch, & Covich, 2000). Of the threevalue domains, the valuation of social and cultural services lagsbehind other categories and is common only for recreation value(Crossman et al., 2013; Egoh, Drakou, Dunbar, Maes, & Willemen,2012; Martínez-Harms & Balvanera, 2012).

One method for assessing the social and cultural values forecosystem services on public lands involves participatory mappingusing public participation GIS (PPGIS) or participatory GIS (PGIS)(Brown and Fagerholm, 2014). PPGIS/PGIS refers to spatially explicitmethods and technologies for capturing and using non-expertspatial information in participatory planning processes (Brown &Kytt€a, 2014; Rambaldi, Kyem, McCall, & Weiner, 2006; Sieber,2006;). PPGIS/PGIS has been increasingly used to identify a rangeof ecosystem services that originate in place-based, local knowl-edge and appears appropriate to identify provisioning and culturalbenefits that are grounded in personal experience (Brown, Montag,& Lyon, 2012; Fagerholm, K€ayhk€o, Ndumbaro, & Khamis, 2012).

In the academic literature, and in planning practice, there iscontinuing ambiguity between PPGIS and PGIS, and the relatedconcept of volunteered geographic information (VGI) described byGoodchild (2007). Brown and Kytt€a (2014) provide some contrastbetween the concepts, observing that PPGIS is typically sponsoredby government planning agencies to enhance public involvementin developed countries for urban and regional planning, often usingrandom sampling methods and digital mapping technology, wherespatial data quality is a primary focus. In contrast, PGIS is typicallysponsored by NGOs in rural areas of developing countries to build

social capital using purposive sampling and non-digital mappingtechnology, where spatial data quality is of secondary importance.VGI methods tend to be highly variable, with NGOs and ad hocgroups sponsoring spatial data collection using volunteers in avariety of settings, with the most notable example being theOpenStreetMap project.

Within the field of PPGIS, the terms “public” and “participa-tion” that comprise PPGIS are also ambiguous. Schlossberg andShuford (2005) describe how the term “public” may include de-cision makers, implementers, affected individuals, interested ob-servers, or the random public, while the term “participation” canbe described as either specific activities or the broader purposesthat participation is supposed to achieve. If the intended meaningis the purpose of engagement, the participation spectrum canrange from simply informing the public to providing citizen con-trol. To understand what is meant by PPGIS, one must identify theobjective of “participation” in the specific PPGIS project. Theresearch reported herein is best described as PPGIS involving“affected individuals” from the public for the participation pur-pose of “consultation” on future public land management inVictoria.

Social and cultural values for ecosystem services have beenidentified using PPGIS methods for public lands such as nationalforests (Beverly, Uto, Wilkes, & Bothwell, 2008; Brown & Reed,2009; Clement-Potter, 2006), national parks (Brown & Weber,2011; van Riper, Kyle, Sutton, Barnes, & Sherrouse, 2012), wilder-ness areas (Brown & Alessa, 2005), regional conservation lands(Brown& Brabyn, 2012), and urban parks (Brown, 2008; Tyrv€ainen,M€akinen, & Schipperjn, 2007). To date, PPGIS studies that measureecosystem services have focused on case studies of specific publicland units such as national parks, forests, and wilderness areas.There has been no research whose purpose was to comprehen-sively identify and compare the mix of social and culturalecosystemvalues associated with the different types of public landsand protected areas within an entire state or country. This studyaddresses this knowledge gap.

Our research progresses from descriptive analysis, i.e., what isthe geographic distribution of social and cultural values across thepublic land estate in the Australian state of Victoria, to morecomplex inquiry that examines the relationships between distri-butions of values by various public land classification schemes. Webegin at a broad, statewide scale and then narrow to an exami-nation of the values associated with individual public land units.Our research methods involve the use of spatial analysis of PPGISdata collected in 2014 and the application of “boundary” sociallandscape metrics (Brown & Reed, 2012a). Boundary landscapemetrics are calculated by analyzing the distribution of mappedPPGIS attributes that fall within pre-defined management areas ofinterest such as national parks, state forests, and other publiclands.

Social/cultural values and public land classifications

The social and cultural values for ecosystem services have beenidentified and operationalized in PPGIS systems using three typo-logiesdthe millennium ecosystem assessment typology (MA,2003), a landscape values typology (Brown & Reed, 2000), and alandscape services typology (Fagerholm et al. 2012). The mostfrequently used typology in PPGIS has been the landscape valuestypology consisting of up to 13 values that are customized for theparticular PPGIS study. The landscape values typology has beenused in more than 15 published PPGIS studies (Brown & Kytt€a,2014) and contains cultural ecosystem values such as recreation,aesthetics, history/culture, and spiritual values, but also includesperceived values for provisioning ecosystem services (economic/

G. Brown et al. / Applied Geography 53 (2014) 77e89 79

subsistence value), and supporting/regulating ecosystem services(biological and life sustaining values). The landscape values anddefinitions used in this study appear in Table 1.

The study was conducted in the state of Victoria, Australia,which similar to the United States, has a public land systemcovering 35% of the terrestrial land area. The primary types ofpublic lands (Crown lands) in the state are parks and protectedareas (50%) and forestry reserves (40%) (DEPI, 2013). Public landsin Victoria are reserved and managed within the context of Stateand Commonwealth legislation, international treaties, and gov-ernment policies. Several of the most influential legislative actsinclude the National Parks Act (1975), the Crown Lands (Reserves)Act (1978), Parks Victoria Act (1998), and the Forests Act (1958).These acts describe the broad purposes for the public lands withreference to the values that these lands are intended to provide.For example, the National Parks Act preamble supports the per-manent reservation of areas for the “enjoyment, recreation, andeducation of the public.” Further, the act justifies the reservationof areas not otherwise suitable for national parks that containfeatures of scenic, historical, archaeological, biological, geological,or scientific interest, urban areas that contain natural beauty orthat are suitable for recreation, and natural areas that serve asreference sites for scientific study. State forests in Victoria have theadditional purposes of conserving flora and fauna, protectingwater catchments and water supply, and providing timber throughsustainable forestry.

Table 1Landscape values typology, operational definitions, and expected associations of values w

Values Operational definition

Scenic/aesthetic These areas are valuable because they containincluding sights, smells, and sounds.

Recreation These areas are valuable because they are whemy leisure time e with family, friends or by min outdoor recreation activities (e.g., camping,

Economic These areas are valuable because they provideor tourism opportunities.

Life Sustaining These areas are valuable because they help prclean, and renew air, soil, and water.

Learning/education/research These areas are valuable because they providewe can learn about the environment through

Biological/conservation These areas are valuable because they providewildlife, and habitat.

Heritage/cultural These areas are valuable because they represehuman history or because they allow me or otand pass down the wisdom and knowledge, trway of life of ancestors.

Therapeutic/health These places are valuable because they makephysically and/or mentally.

Spiritual These areas are valuable because they are sacrspiritually special places or because I feel revefor nature here.

Intrinsic/existence These areas are valuable in their own right, noothers think about them.

Wilderness/pristine These areas are valuable because they are wildrelatively untouched by European activity.

Preferences Operational definition

Increase conservation/protection Increase conservation and protectAdd recreation facilities Add more recreation facilities (e.gAdd tourism services/development Add new tourism services (e.g., gu

visitor center) here (Please specifyImprove access Improve vehicular access (i.e., from

increased walking trail access undImprove bushfire protection Improve bushfire protection hereResource extraction Engage in resource extraction sucResource use Engage in resource use such as grDecrease or limit access Decrease or limit access here (e.g.No development or change No development or change to lan

The public land estate in Victoria is presumed to collectivelycontain the full range of values described in the landscape valuestypology in Table 1. However, the legislative intent of the publicland reservation, in combination with regulatory policies andmanagement guidelines, suggest that certain categories of publiclands may exhibit stronger association with certain types of land-scape values expressed by the public. In Table 1, we provide somepresuppositions about expected value associations with public landtypes based on our reading of the enabling legislation andcontemporary regulatory and management policies. The purposehere is not to examine the legislative rationality behind the originalreservation of the public land, but to determine the extent to whichthe public perceives public land values to be consistent with thepurposes of the reservation. Onewould not expect landscape valuesto be distributed proportionately across highly variable biophysicallandscapes associated with public lands, but rather exhibit differ-entially important associations based on the features and qualitiesof the area and the characteristics of the people that express valuesfor the different types of public land.

A primary purpose of this research is to improve our under-standing of the contribution of different public land units to system-wide ecosystem values. To achieve this purpose, we propose a seriesof research questions applied at various scales. We begin with astatewide focus on all public lands, then narrow to national parksand reserves as a subset of all public lands, and conclude withspecific public land units using boundary landscape metrics.

ith public lands in Victoria.

Expected association by public land type

attractive scenery National parks, state forests, coastal reserves

re I enjoy spendingyself, participatingwalking, or fishing).

National parks, state forests, state parks, andcommunity/metro/regional parks

natural resources State forests, national parks

oduce, preserve, State forests, reservoirs

places whereobservation or study.

National parks, state forests

a variety of plants, National parks, state forests, marine sanctuaries,nature conservation reserves

nt natural andhers to continueaditions, and

National parks, heritage/cultural reserves

me feel better, Community/metro parks, state forests

ed, religious, orrence and respect

National parks

matter what I or National parks, natural features reserves

, uninhabited, or National parks, wilderness areas

ion here (e.g., due to encroaching development, feral animals/weeds, illegal use).., walking trails, playgrounds, picnic ground) here.ided tours, signs, brochures, apps) or development (e.g., trail head, toilet block,).no access to 4WD access or from 4WD road to 2WD road). Note: please map

er the recreation facilities icon..h as logging or mining here.azing, hyroelectric energy, or wind energy here., close to vehicles or 4WD).d use here.

G. Brown et al. / Applied Geography 53 (2014) 77e8980

For all public lands we address the following research questions:

� Which values are mapped most frequently across public landsstatewide?

� What is the geographic distribution of mapped values?� Are there significant associations between the distribution ofvalues and the general classification of public lands?

� Do certain types of public lands exhibit stronger associationwith certain types of values? For example, Brown and Alessa(2005) found that wilderness areas in Alaska contain dispro-portionately more values associated with indirect and intan-gible uses of the landscape such as life-sustaining, spiritual, andintrinsic valuesdwhereas landscape values outside wildernessareas on multiple-use lands reflect more direct and tangiblevalues such as recreation, economic, and subsistence values. Onmultiple-use national forests, recreation and esthetic valueshave been consistently the most frequently mapped values(Beverly et al., 2008; Brown & Reed, 2009; Clement & Cheng,2011).

With respect to parks and reserves we address the followingquestions:

� Are there any significant associations between the distributionof values and the IUCN classification system for protected areas?For example, a logical presupposition is that Class Ib landsshould have disproportionately more wilderness values giventhe presumed higher level of regulatory and management pro-tection of these lands.

� Are there any significant associations between mapped valuesand the internal management classification operationalized byParks Victoria, the agency responsible for the management ofparks and reserves in Victoria? The agency uses a Level of Pro-tection (LoP) classification scheme to guide the management ofparks and reserves under its jurisdiction. Is there consistencybetween the management schemes and the distribution ofmapped values?

For individual parks and reserves we ask the following question:

� How are values distributed by park or reserve unit as deter-mined by social landscape metrics including abundance, di-versity, intensity, and the potential for conflict?

We focus particular attention on the conflict metric, oper-ationalized and adapted from Brown and Raymond (2014) thatcombines PPGIS mapped values and land use preferences into aconflict index. Given the historic controversy over the grazingpractices in Alpine National Park, (Fraser & Chisholm, 2000), onemight expect the mapped landscape values and preferences in thisparticular national park to reflect a high degree of potential conflict.

As the first comparative study of ecosystem values acrossdifferent types of public lands classifications using PPGIS, ourempirical results are fundamentally linked to the strengths andlimitations of the researchmethods. In the Discussion, we reflect onboth the practical implications of the results for public land man-agement agencies as well as the PPGIS methods for conducting thistype of value assessment.

Methods

Study location and context

The study location was the state of Victoria, the sixth largeststate or territory in Australia with an area of 237,629 km2 and an

estimated population of 5,768,600 (ABS, 2013). Most of the state'spopulation is concentrated in the area near the capital city ofMelbourne, Australia's second-largest city. The state's economy ishighly diversified with the most significant contributing industriesincluding financial and insurance services, manufacturing, profes-sional, scientific and technical services, and construction (ABS,2013).

The public land estate in Victoria comprises approximately 35%of the terrestrial land area (DEPI, 2013) with the largest contiguousareas located in the mountainous eastern third of the state, and thenorthwest sector. Public lands in Victoria, also known as “Crown”lands, comprise a wide variety of classifications including statemanaged national parks, state forests, federally managedcommonwealth lands, metropolitan and regional parks, andspecialized reserves for the protection of historic and cultural re-sources. Parks and conservation reserves make up 3.98 millionhectares (approximately 50% of all Crown land), state forestscomprise 3.14 million hectares (approximately 40%), and otherCrown lands cover 796,000 ha (10%) including CommonwealthGovernment land, metropolitan parks, and land held under leasefrom the Crown (DEPI, 2013). Approximately 90% of Victorian parksand conservation reserves by area have been assigned protectedarea status category I or II, under the International Union for Con-servation of Nature (IUCN) system, which is arguably quite typicalfor park systems established in the pre-1900s.

Data collection process

The research team designed, pre-tested, and implemented aninternet-based PPGIS website for data collection. See Fig. 1. Thestudy website consisted of an opening screen for participants toeither enter or request an access code, followed by an informedconsent screen for participation, and then a Google®maps interfacewhere participants drag and drop digital markers onto a map ofVictoria. The interface consisted of two different panels with thefirst panel containing markers representing 11 landscape valuesand the second panel consisting of nine management preferences(see definitions in Table 1). The instructions requested the partici-pant to “drag small icons onto a map of Victoria to identify placesyou value and your public land preferences … although you canplace markers anywhere, the focus of this study is on public lands”.The different types of markers placed and their spatial locationswere recorded for each participant on the web server in a database,along with other information including a timestamp of when themarker was placed, the Google® map view at time of markerplacement, and the Google® map zoom level (scale) at which themarker was placed. Participants could place as few or as manymarkers as they deemed necessary to express their values andmanagement preferences. Following completion of the mappingactivity (placing markers), participants were directed to a newscreen and provided with a set of text-based survey questions toassess general, non-spatial public land management preferencesand to measure respondent socio-demographic characteristics.PPGIS data collection ended with completion of the survey ques-tions. Study participants had the option to return to the PPGISwebsite later to use their access code to add new markers or toadjust previously-placed markers.

From December 2013 to February 15, 2014, study participantswere recruited using both purposive and convenience samplingmethods: (1) visitors to 16 national parks, 5 state parks and 9metropolitan parks were contacted on site as part of the ParksVictoria's annual visitor satisfaction survey and provided with aninvitation card describing the study, along with the study URL andan access code; (2) Parks Victoria prepared and distributed a pressrelease about the study, placed a link to the study URL on the

Fig. 1. The PPGIS mapping interface for public land values. The Google® maps application allows participants to drag and drop value and preference markers from “tab panels” onleft (A) onto map location (B) and optionally annotate each marker with a pop-up window (C). There are map controls on right (D) providing quick navigation to different locationsin the state, for map pan/zoom, and to select alternative base map views such at satellite or terrain. There is an indicator (E) that informs the participant when map is sufficientlyzoomed to place a marker.

G. Brown et al. / Applied Geography 53 (2014) 77e89 81

agency's website, and an agency spokesperson promoted the studyin an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio interview; and (3)a recruitment letter was distributed to members of the VictoriaNational Parks Association (VNPA), a non-governmental organiza-tion (NGO) that promotes nature conservation in Victoria. Partici-pants in the study were also encouraged to refer friends, relatives,and acquaintances to the study website. Any member of the publiccould request an instant access code to participate in the study. Toencourage participation, three incentive options were provided theto the first 1500 study participants: (1) a $10 electronic voucherredeemable at Amazon.com, (2) a free movie pass, or (3) thedonation of $10 in the participant's name to one of three pre-selected charities. The decision to include the option of a chari-table donation was an innovation to increase study participationrates. Previous experience by the research team showed that asmall, cash-equivalent incentive provided a relatively small in-crease in participation rates over no incentive. The idea was thatperhaps a $10 benefit to charity provides greater participantsatisfaction than receiving the incentive personally.

Analyses

Participant characteristics

We assessed the representativeness of study participants withcensus data on the variables of age, gender, education, income, andfamily structure. We also asked participants to self-identify theirlevel of knowledge about public lands in Victoria, their frequency ofuse of public lands, and the number of times they had visited na-tional or state parks in the past 12 months. We also examined thegeographic distribution of participants within Victoria based onpostcode to assess the participant distribution relative to popula-tion distribution.

Association of mapped values with public lands

Summary statistics were generated to describe the frequencydistribution and general location of the PPGIS mapped values. Themapped point datawas then intersected (with 100m tolerance) with

the public land classification (PLMGEN) geodatabase (polygons)maintained by the Victorian Department of Environment andPrimary Industries (DEPI) (http://services.land.vic.gov.au/catalogue/metadata?anzlicId¼ANZVI0803004213&publicId¼guest&extractionProviderId¼1). We selected 11 major categories of public lands(coastal reserves, community/metro/regional parks, state forests,marine parks and sanctuaries, national parks, natural features re-serves, nature conservation reserves, wilderness parks, state parks,and water production and reservoir areas) that accounted for over90% of Victorian public lands, and cross tabulated point counts withthe categories. We generated chi-squared statistics and standardizedresiduals to determine whether the number of mapped value pointsdiffered significantly from the number of points that would be ex-pected in each public land category.

We also conducted correspondence analysis of the two cate-gorical variables to visualize the value and public land type re-lationships. Correspondence analysis computes row and columnscores and produces normalized plots based on the scores. In theplot, the distances between category points reflect the relation-ships between the categories with similar categories plotted closeto each other. Interpretation of the plot is done by rows (public landtypes) and columns (values). If two public land types have verysimilar profiles, their points in the plot will be close together.Similarly, if two values have similar profiles, their points will beproximate. The distance between a row point and a column pointhas no direct interpretation but the directions of columns and rowsfrom the plot origin are meaningful.

Association of mapped values with public lands by IUCN category

To determine the association between landscape values andprotected areas classification, we identified all public lands inVictoria that had been classified according to the IUCN scheme. Weintersected these polygons with the mapped PPGIS data. We cross-tabulated the point counts with the categories and generated chi-squared statistics and standardized residuals to determinewhether particular types of values are associated with differentIUCN protected area categories. We also ran correspondence anal-ysis to visually display the associations of values by IUCN categoriesin a normalized plot.

Table 2Participation statistics and respondent characteristics with comparison to Victoriacensus data (ABS, 2013).

Participation statistics

Number of participants (one or more locations mapped) 1905Number completing post-mapping survey 1624Number of locations mapped 35,347Number of locations attributable to public lands 30,194Range of locations mapped (min, max points) 1 to 426Mean, median of all locations mapped 18.8, 14Mean, median of values mapped 16.8, 10.5Mean, median of preferences mapped 6.3, 3

How participants learned of studyParks Victoria website 423 (23%)From relative, friend, acquaintance 477 (26%)On-site recruitment at parks 179 (9%)Other (major identifiable sources) 826 (43%)Bushwalking clubs 127Victoria National Parks Association (VNPA) 3064WD clubs 79Conservation group 49Outdoor recreation group 45ABC Radio interview by Parks Victoria 35Non-disclosed or indeterminate 184

Study participants ABS Census 2011

Age (median) 36 37Gender Male 57% Male 49%

Female 43% Female 51%Education (highest level completed)Bachelors degree 39% 16%Postgraduate education 16% 11%

Household income (annual)Median $110,000 $63,200Less than $20,000 2.6% 3.1%$140,000e$160,000 15.1% 7.3%$160,000e$180,000 9.4% 4.2%$180,000e$200,000 5.0% 1.9%$200,000þ 2.9% 3.1%

Families with children 41% 46%

Note: ABS income percentages are estimates to match survey income categories.

G. Brown et al. / Applied Geography 53 (2014) 77e8982

Association of mapped values with Parks Victoria Level of Protection(LoP)

The mapped values were intersected with national parks andreserves classified by Parks Victoria using a management classifi-cation system. Levels of Protection (LoP) is a framework utilized byParks Victoria to aid planning and resource allocation by placingindividual parks in a statewide context. LoP groups parks accordingto biodiversity criteria and allocates broad conservation objectivesto each group. Parks are classified into terrestrial (A1, A2, B, C, D andE1 and E2) andmarine (A, B and C) groups. Parks and reserves in theA group are generally large, intact, and protect themost species andhabitats. These parks are assigned a “high priority for active man-agement”. At the other end of the spectrum, level E parks aregenerally small with few natural assets where the managementobjective is to maintain assets and give priority only to emergingthreats. The PPGIS point data was cross tabulated with the LoPcategories to generate chi-squared statistics and standardized re-siduals to determine whether values have significant associationwith the Parks Victoria management scheme.

Quantifying park/reserve qualities with social landscape metrics

We examined the distribution of park/reserve values usingmultiple social landscape metrics described by Brown and Reed(2012a). The purpose of social landscape metrics is to better un-derstand the structure and distribution of common and uniquevalues across the park/reserve system. In addition, metrics providethe foundation for value compatibility analysis (Brown & Reed,2012b) that assesses the consistency of potential management ac-tions with values located within a park/reserve. To provide suffi-cient data to assess the park/reserve, we selected parks andreserves with a minimum of 30 mapped values to calculate themetrics. The value count (P0) metric counts the number of valuepoint locations within the park/reserve unit while the value percent(P1) metric calculates the percent of mapped points in the unitrelative to the total number of mapped points across all units. Thedominant value (D) metric is simply the landscape value withlargest count of points within the park/reserve unit. The valuedominance index (D1) metric quantifies the dominance relationshipbetween the dominant value within the park/reserve unit and thenext most common landscape value on a scale that ranges from0 (i.e., there is no difference in dominance among values) to 1.0(there is only one landscape value in the park/reserve unit). Thevalue density (D2) metric calculates the density of landscape valuesper park/reserve area while the value diversity index (D3) metric isthe standard Shannon diversity index commonly used in ecologicalstudies calculated within a park/reserve unit. The value richnessmetric (R) is the number of different value types mapped in thepark/reserve unit and can range from 0 to 11 in this study. Theconflict potential index (C) metric can be calculated many ways, buthere we follow one of the methods suggested by Brown andRaymond (2014) where the conflict index is derived from a math-ematical combination of mapped preferences and values wheredifferences in preferred land use, in this case conservation versusdevelopment, are amplified by the intensity of values located in thepark/reserve unit. Specifically, we operationalized the conflict in-dex as follows:

C ¼ MAXðMINðPs; PoÞ;0:1ÞMAXðPsPoÞ �Vc

where C is conflict index (higher values indicate greater conflictpotential, Ps is the number of mapped preferences supportinggreater conservation and protection in the park unit, Po is the

number of mapped preferences supporting additional develop-ment in the park unit (extraction, resource use, tourism, or recre-ation facilities), and Vc is the total count of all values in the parkunit.

Results

Response and participant characteristics

A total of 1905 participants accessed the study website andplaced one or more markers from December 2013 to February 15,2014. See Table 2. Of these participants, 1624 (85%) fully or partiallycompleted the survey questions that followed themapping activity.A total of 35,347markers weremapped during data collection, with30,194 (85%) of these attributable to public lands in Victoria. Thenumber of markers placed per participant ranged from 1 to 426with the average number of numbers placed being 18.8. Approxi-mately 85% of the markers placed were value markers with theremaining 15% being preference markers.

The participants learned of the study through multiple infor-mation channels. About 26% learned of the study through referralfrom a relative, friend, or acquaintance. Other non-referral sourcesof recruitment were the Parks Victoria website (23%), on-siterecruitment at parks (9%), and other groups with interests in Vic-toria public land issues. Key contributing groups were the VictoriaNational Parks Association (n ¼ 306), various bushwalking clubs

G. Brown et al. / Applied Geography 53 (2014) 77e89 83

(n ¼ 127), four-wheel drive clubs (n ¼ 79), conservation groups(n ¼ 49), and outdoor recreation groups (n ¼ 35).

Table 2 also provides a socio-demographic profile of studyparticipants with comparative census data (ABS, 2011). The medianage of participants was 36 (similar to census), but participants weremore proportionately male, with higher levels of formal education,and higher self-reported household income than census data. ThePPGIS sampling bias toward more highly educated and higher in-come males is consistent with other reported PPGIS studies indeveloped countries (Brown & Kytt€a, 2014).

About 78% of respondents rated their self-identified knowledgeof public lands as “good” or “excellent”, 20% “average”, and only 2%reporting “below average” or “poor”. About 43% of respondentsindicated they use public lands either daily or at least once perweek. About 87% percent of respondents use public lands at leastonce per month or more frequently. The median number of visits tonational or state parks in Victoria in the past 12 months was 10visits. In summary, the study participants appear knowledgeableabout the public lands they mapped.

We assessed the geographic distribution of participants in Vic-toria by comparing the expected counts of participants per post-code based on census data with the actual number of studyparticipants from each postcode. An important question, given thedominant volunteer sampling method used in the study, waswhether regional Victoria was under-represented in study partici-pation compared to the capital city, Melbourne. One might pre-suppose a potential digital divide between urban and regionalVictoria but we did not find strong evidence. The centralMelbournepostcode (3000) was significantly over-represented in responsecompared to census data, but there were multiple other Melbournesuburbs that were significantly under-represented. The over-representation of central Melbourne was offset by multipleregional postcodes that were over-represented compared to censusdata. On the whole, the geographic distribution of participants was

Fig. 2. Frequency distribution of mapped values in public land units: (a) Recreation, (b) scvalues indicate similar spatial distribution while biological and intrinsic/extrinsic values deviarrows).

roughly proportional to the general population distribution inVictoria.

Frequency of mapped values and management preferences on publiclands

We generated frequency counts of the PPGIS mapped values andpreferencesonpublic lands. Themost frequentlymappedvalueswererecreation (n¼ 5939/20% of all markers), scenic/esthetic (4904/16%),biological (3397/11%), life sustaining (2051/7%), and wilderness(2030/7%). The least frequently mapped values were economic (644/2%), spiritual (845/3%), and therapeutic (1197/4%). Falling in themiddle of the distribution were heritage (1596/5%), learning/educa-tion (1491/5%), and intrinsic/existence values (1391/5%). The spatialdistribution of the threemost frequentlymapped valuesdrecreation,scenic/aesthetic, and biological valuedand for comparison, intrinsic/existence value, are provided in Fig. 2. The images do not reveal sig-nificant contrast between recreation and scenic/esthetic values, withthe same public lands having larger value counts. There is greatercontrast in the maps of biological and intrinsic values with relativelyhigher frequencies of these values in the western mallee lands, theMurray River lands, and the eastern coast of Victoria.

The mapping of management preferences, in aggregate, totaled4446 markers or about 15% of all markers mapped. The mostfrequently mapped preferences were to prohibit future develop-ment and/or land use change (1439/32%), to increase conservationand protection (1277/29%), and to improve vehicle access (415/9%).The least frequently mapped preferences were to increase extrac-tive activities (e.g., mining, logging) (57/1%), to increase resourceuse (e.g., grazing) 105 (2%), and to increase tourism development(118/3%). Other management preferences mapped were to improvebushfire protection (390/9%), add recreation facilities (308/7%), anddecrease or limit vehicle access (234/5%).

enic/aesthetic, (c) Biological, and (d) intrinsic/existence values. Recreation and scenicate in western mallee lands, River Murray lands, and the eastern coastline (indicated by

G. Brown et al. / Applied Geography 53 (2014) 77e8984

Association of mapped values with public land categories

There was a statistically significant association between publicland type and landscape value (Х 2¼ 1160.4, df¼ 100, p < .001) withcross-tabulated frequencies appearing in Table 3. Adjusted stan-dardized residuals more than 2.0 or less than �2.0 indicate thenumber of cases in the cell is significantly larger or smaller thanwould be expected. The larger the absolute value of the standard-ized residual, the greater the deviation from expected counts.Especially large standardized residuals command particular atten-tion. For example, larger, disproportionate associations werefound between scenic/esthetic values and coastal reserves(residual ¼ 6.5); recreation values and metro/community/regionalparks (9.9), state forests (7.0), and water reservoirs (5.9); life sus-taining values and water production/reservoirs (5.5); biologicalvalues and nature conservation reserves (11.8); heritage values andhistoric/cultural reserves (8.3); intrinsic/existence values and na-tional parks (5.9); and wilderness values in national parks (18.0)and wilderness parks (5.0). Larger, under-representative associa-tions were found between recreation values and national parks(�12.3); biological values and metro/community/regional parks(�5.9); and wilderness values with natural features reserves (�6.1)and historic/cultural reserves (�4.5). The majority of these findingsappear logically consistent with what would be expected based onlegislative and management purposes.

The normalized plot of the two variables from correspondenceanalysis appears as Fig. 3a. From the plot, metro/community/regional parks have a similar profile to heritage and cultural re-serves, nature conservation reserves and marine parks/sanctuariesare similar, and wilderness parks are the least similar to otherpublic land types. The public land types of state parks, state forests,coastal reserves, and natural feature reserves appear clustered inthe plot and thus are more similar than different. National parks liein-between this cluster and wilderness parks. Plots of the valuesindicate that biological and wilderness values are most distinctfrom the other values types. Recreation, heritage, and economic

Table 3Association of mapped values with public land type. Overall association is significant (Х 2

(green) highlighted.

values appear most similar, as do therapeutic, life sustaining, andspiritual values. Biological values align with marine parks/sanctu-aries and nature conservation reserves while wilderness values arein the same region as wilderness parks.

Association of mapped values with IUCN categories

There was a statistically significant association between publicland type and IUCN protected area classification (Х 2 ¼ 651.2,df¼ 50, p < .001). The cross-tabulated frequencies appear in Table 4and the normalized plot from correspondence analysis appears inFig. 3b. Larger, disproportionate associations were found betweenscenic/esthetic values and national monuments (IUCN III)(residual ¼ 4.7); biological values and strict nature preserves/wil-derness areas (IUCN Ia and Ib) (10.6), sustainable use areas (IUCNVI) 4.9, habitat/species areas (IUCN IV) (3.9); and wilderness valuesand national parks (IUCN II) (15.4). Larger, under-representativeassociations were found between recreation values and nationalparks (IUCN II) (�9.6); and wilderness values and national monu-ments (IUCN III) (�3.7). Thus, the aggregation of public land typesinto broader IUCN classifications produced relatively weaker as-sociations with values. In the normalized plot (Fig. 3b), IUCN cat-egories I, IV, and VI were most similar to each other whilecategories II and III were similar.

Association of mapped values with Parks Victoria Level of Protection(LoP)

There was a statistically significant association between publicland type and LoP classification (Х 2 ¼ 467.4, df ¼ 50, p < .001). Thecross-tabulated frequencies appear in Table 5. Larger, dispropor-tionate associations were found between recreation values and LoPclass B (residual ¼ 8.8) and class C (5.0); economic values and LoPclass E1/E2 (4.0); heritage values and LoP class D (4.1); and wil-derness values and LoP class A1/A2 (15.1). Larger, under-representative associations were found between recreation values

¼ 1160.4, df ¼ 100, p < .001) with residuals less than �2.0 (pink) or greater than 2.0

Fig. 3. Symmetrical normalized plots from correspondence analysis of values by (a) public land type and (b) IUCN classification.

G. Brown et al. / Applied Geography 53 (2014) 77e89 85

and LoP class A1/A2 (�10.4) andMarine A/B (�4.0); and wildernessvalues and class B (�7.8), C (�8.0), D (�5.6) and E (�6.0).

These results are generally consistent with the IUCN results. TheA1/A2 LoP classes contain predominantly national parks (82%) with

Table 4Association of mapped values with IUCN protected area categories. Metropolitan parks areThe overall association is significant (Х 2 ¼ 651.2, df ¼ 50, p < .001) with standardized re

Table 5Association of mapped values with Parks Victoria designated Level of Protection (LoP) classtandardized residuals less than �2.0 (pink) or greater than 2.0 (green) highlighted.

high levels of species diversity and numbers of threatened species.The B to E classes contain conservation reserves, regional parks andmetro parks that are smaller in size (<140,000 ha) and are thusmore fragmentedwith fewer wilderness values. The D and E classes

not classified within the IUCN system, but were included in the analysis for contrast.siduals less than �2.0 (pink) or greater than 2.0 (green) highlighted.

sifications. The overall association is significant (Х 2 ¼ 467.4, df ¼ 50, p < .001) with

G. Brown et al. / Applied Geography 53 (2014) 77e8986

include historic and natural features reserves so their stronger as-sociation with heritage values would be expected.

Social landscape metrics by park/reserve

Social landscape metrics were calculated for all parks and re-serves containing 30 or more mapped values (n ¼ 93). Results forthe 50 most frequently mapped parks appear in Table 6. Landscapemetrics identify distinctive or unusual value distributions that canprovide a focal point for managerial attention. The two metrics that

Table 6Social landscapemetrics for most frequentlymapped values in park/reserve units in Victor

measure the frequency of mapped values (P0, P1) indicate that fournational parks in particulardAlpine, Wilsons Promontory, Gram-pians, and Great Otwaydare most important to residents of Vic-toria. These four national parks were mapped more than twice asoften as any other park/reserve in Victoria. In terms of visitornumbers, these parks are among the most popular of Victoria'sNational Parks and appear deserving of the title of the “People'sChoice Award” for Victoria's most valuable national parks.

Scenic/esthetic and recreation values were the most frequentlymapped in all but two of the park/reserves and thus were the

ia. Highlighted cell (green) indicate park/reservemetrics thatmerit special attention.

G. Brown et al. / Applied Geography 53 (2014) 77e89 87

dominant (D) values. In contrast, Croajingolong NP and MountWorth State Park appear distinctive because wilderness and bio-logical values were dominant respectively. Croajingolong NP is aremote park that follows the eastern coastline of Victoria for100 km and contains eucalypt forest, rainforest, and heathlandwithseveral secluded, coastal camping sports. The biological values ofMount Worth State Park appear dominant. The park includes anancient Mountain Ash (Eucalyptus regnans) forest, including theStanding Giant, a tree seven meters in circumference and morethan 300 years old.

The dominance index (D1) indicates whether the dominantvalue is truly dominant or only slightly more common than othervalues in the park/reserve. A key finding inTable 6 is that the smallermetropolitan and regional parks such as Yarra Valley (D1¼.68) andDandenong Valley Parklands (D1 ¼ .73) are heavily dominatedby recreation values, even though the parks contain most of theother value types as indicated by the richness (R) index. Althoughthese smaller parks contain multiple values, recreational use valueswere much more frequently mapped than the other values.

The density metric (D2) controls for the size of the park/reserveunder the assumption that larger landscape parks/reserves shouldhave more mapped values. But some parks/reserves are highlyvalued despite their relatively small size. For example, Yarra BendPark, Yarra Valley Parklands, Albert Park, and Point Nepean NPcontain the highest densities of mapped values, exceeding otherparks/reserves on a per hectare basis.

The diversity metric (D3) measures the number of differentvalue types mapped in the park/reserve and also accounts for theevenness of the mapped values. One would expect larger parks tocontain a higher diversity of mapped values as found previously byBrown (2008) and the results support this supposition. However,the diversity metric also reveals a few surprises. For example, twosmaller national parks (Tarra-Bulga and Barmah) also have a highdiversity of values. Tarra-Bulga, where scenic value is dominant, isknown for its giant Mountain Ash trees, fern gullies, and ancientmyrtle beeches. There is a suspension bridge through the forestcanopy that provides visitors with spectacular views to the forestfloor. Thus, this park provides a diversity of values across thespectrum from scenery and recreation to biological and spiritualvalues. Barmah, where recreation value is dominant, also provides adiversity of biological and life sustaining values. The riverine forestin the park is part of the largest River Red Gum (Eucalytpuscamaldulensis) forest in the world where seasonal flooding of theMurray River creates a diverse natural habitat for wildlife. The parkreceives significant recreation use from camping, fishing, horseriding, bushwalking, swimming, and canoeing. Prior to 2010, Bar-mah was a state park with a long history of recreational use under aless regulated regime.

The conflict index metric (C) measures the potential for conflictunder the assumption that some public land uses and values arecompetitive rather than complementary. The greatest potential forland use conflict is found in parks/reserves where there is conser-vation or development disagreement and where the park/reservehas high value. In this study, conflict potential is operationalized bythe spatial concurrence of preferences for more conservation orprotection and preferences for additional development activity(extraction, resource use, tourism development, vehicular access,or additional recreation facilities) that are amplified by the numberof mapped values. The parks/reserves with the highest potential forconflict were several of the more popular national parks such asMount Buffalo and Wilsons Promontory National Parks. The parkwith the largest conflict index was Alpine National Park. This isVictoria's largest national park and has a history of conflict overgrazing (Fraser& Chisholm, 2000) and recreational use (Mckercher,1996). Several less iconic parks such as Lerderderg State Park, Lake

Eildon National Park, and Kinglake National Park were also iden-tified as having relatively high potential for conflict. The potentialconflict at Lerderberg was the result of contrasting preferences onwhether to provide greater vehicular access to this park whichoffers a primitive recreation experience, while the higher potentialconflict at Lake Eildon and Kinglake Natonal Parks derive frompreferences for increased vehicle access and the provision of morerecreational facilities. The conflict potential for parks and reservesin Victoria is graphically illustrated in Fig. 4 where the conflict in-dex was grouped using natural breaks into high, medium, and lowcategories.

Discussion

Understanding social and cultural values of public land is animportant and underdeveloped component of ecosystem servicesvaluation. Identifying social and cultural values is also increasinglyimportant for public land planning and management (Ives &Kendal, 2013). Our assessment of public land valuesdthe firstcomprehensive assessment across an entire public land estate-dused two analytical focal lengths, a wide-angle, state-wide lensthat examined broad associations between values and public landtypes, and a zoom lens that used social landscape metrics toexamine the distribution of values in individual park/reserve units.The two analyses provide alternative, but complementary assess-ments of public lands.

As a system, public lands in Victoria provide the full spectrum ofsocial and cultural ecosystem values with recreation, scenic/aesthetic, and biological values being most recognized by studyparticipants. The larger, most highly visited national parks appeardisproportionately important in providing these values, but thesocial landscape metrics also reveal that on a per hectare basis,metro and regional parks provide higher intensities of valuescentered on recreation. Despite the uneven spatial distribution ofpublic lands within Victoria, these lands comprise a complemen-tary and representative system of social and cultural values that areabundant, rich, and diverse. National and wilderness parks providerelatively pristine natural settings that are differentially importantfor wilderness and intrinsic/extrinsic values, state forests providebiological and life sustaining values combined with nature-basedrecreation, and metropolitan and regional parks provide impor-tant recreation opportunities proximate to urban and suburbanpopulations. The Victorian coast further augments the system byproviding exceptional scenic values in combination with abundantmarine life.

The analysis of specific park/reserve units using social landscapemetrics reveals special and unique places. For example, PortCampbell National Park on the southern coast of Victoria containsthe scenic “Twelve Apostles”, an iconic coastline that featuresgolden cliffs and crumbling pillars where scenic values dominateother mapped values. The metrics also reveal that Wilsons Prom-ontory, another coastal national park, is similarly dominated byscenic values. The conflict metric indicates some of the larger na-tional parks such as Alpine National Park will continue to bechallenged to find the right balance between conservation anddevelopment preferences in future management.

The validity and reliability of PPGIS to assess the values associ-ated with public lands depend on the data collection methods andrepresentativeness of the sampling. The value and preference ty-pologies, as operationalized in PPGIS, have a relatively high degreeof construct validity given their replication across multiple studiesinvolving public lands. For example, the relative frequency ofmapped values in this study was consistent with the values foundin a recent PPGIS study of Hinchinbrook Island National Park inAustralia (van Riper et al., 2012). We aremore ambivalent about the

Fig. 4. Map of potential conflict in parks/reserves based on conflict index grouped into high/medium/low categories.

G. Brown et al. / Applied Geography 53 (2014) 77e8988

sampling design and implementation that necessarily relied onpurposive and to a greater extent, convenience sampling, the latterbeing termed volunteered geographic information or VGI. The sam-pling method, especially probability vs. non-probability sampling,represents a potential, but not definitive point of distinction be-tween PPGIS and VGI systems (Brown & Kytt€a, 2014).

By the standards of science, the lack of random sampling ofhouseholds in Victoria due to budget constraints must be consid-ered a study limitation. The participant profile is biased towardindividuals that are familiar and use public lands on a fairly regularbasis. Further, we estimate that about half of the participants likelyhave memberships or other affiliations with organizations thatspan a variety of public land advocacy interests ranging fromgreater conservation to increased access. As a cautionary tale,Brown, Kelly, and Whitall (2012) observed that PPGIS participantsthat were mobilized by advocacy groups can influence the types ofmarkers that are mapped in the PPGIS process, with the potentialideological bias more apparent when mapping land usepreferences.

Despite limitations in the sampling design, there were encour-aging aspects of the sampling response that merit further consid-eration for future public land assessments using PPGIS and VGImethods. With over 1900 study participants, this study achievednearly double the response of the largest previous study to mapcultural ecosystem values (Brown & Fagerholm, 2014). Priorresearch by this research team that used social media and volunteernetworks to recruit PPGIS participants were far less effective. Wespeculate that the affinity of the study topic with partic-ipantsdparks and public landsdin combination with an innova-tion in monetary incentives that offered participants the option todonate money to selected charities on their behalf, resulted inparticipation rates that exceeded our expectations. The highparticipation rate should be considered in light of previous PPGISstudies that used random household sampling, but consistently

reported very low response rates as well as sampling bias (Brown&Kytt€a, 2014). Ideally, a comprehensive public lands assessmentwould follow the approach of Brown and Reed (2009) who advo-cate a PPGIS sampling design that combines regional randomhousehold sampling, volunteer opportunities for non-regionalresidents to participate, and the targeting of public land stake-holder groups.

In a recent review of empirical mapping of ecosystem valuesusing PPGIS, Brown and Fagerholm (2014) found little evidence thatmapped data had actually been used for decision support in landuse planning and that best practice had yet to emerge fromresearch dominated by methodological pluralism and case studyresearch. This particular study adds yet another case study, albeitthe first to map social and cultural ecosystem values across a sys-tem of public lands. Whether this assessment will influenceresource allocations andmanagement decisions fromParks Victoriaand DEPI, the agencies responsible for over 90 percent of the publiclands in Victoria, remains to be seen. The most important outcomesfor this study were to establish the methodological viability ofsystem-wide assessment of public lands using PPGIS/VGI methodsand to establish a baseline inventory of public land values in Vic-toria that can be used to compare with future biological and socialassessments. The system developed was both cost and time effi-cient and the results allow small-scale data interrogation to occur.The challenge that remains is to evaluate the use of this data byParks Victoria and further refine the method accordingly.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013). QuickStats. Available from http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/2?opendocument&navpos¼220 Accessed 27.04.14.

Beverly, J., Uto, K., Wilkes, J., & Bothwell, P. (2008). Assessing spatial attributes offorest landscape values: an internet-based participatory mapping approach.Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 38, 289e303.

G. Brown et al. / Applied Geography 53 (2014) 77e89 89

Bonn, A., & Gaston, K. (2005). Capturing biodiversity: selecting priority areas forconservation using different criteria. Biodiversity & Conservation, 14(5),1083e1100.

Brown, G. (2008). A theory of urban park geography. Journal of Leisure Research,40(4), 589e607.

Brown, G., & Alessa, L. (2005). A GIS-based inductive study of wilderness values.International Journal of Wilderness, 11(1), 14e18.

Brown, G., & Brabyn, L. (2012). The extrapolation of social landscape values to anational level in New Zealand using landscape character classification. AppliedGeography, 35(1e2), 84e94.

Brown, G., & Fagerholm, N. (2014). Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystemservices: a review and evaluation. Ecosystem Services (Unpublished manuscript).

Brown, G., & Kytt€a, M. (2014). Key issues and research priorities for public partici-pation GIS (PPGIS): a synthesis based on empirical research. Applied Geography,46, 122e136.

Brown, G., Montag, J. M., & Lyon, K. (2012). Public participation GIS: a method foridentifying ecosystem services. Society & Natural Resources, 25, 633e651.

Brown, G., & Raymond, C. (2014). Methods for identifying land use conflict potentialusing participatory mapping. Landscape and Urban Planning, 122, 196e208.

Brown, G., & Reed, P. (2000). Validation of a forest values typology for use in na-tional forest planning. Forest Science, 46(2), 240e247.

Brown, G., & Reed, P. (2009). Public participation GIS: a new method for use innational forest planning. Forest Science, 55, 166e182.

Brown, G., & Reed, P. (2012a). Social landscape metrics: measures for understandingplace values from public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS).Landscape Research, 37, 73e90.

Brown, G., & Reed, P. (2012b). Values compatibility analysis: Integrating publicvalues in a forest planning decision support system. Applied Spatial Analysis andPolicy, 5(4), 317e332.

Brown, G., & Weber, D. (2011). Public participation GIS: a new method for use innational park planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 102(1), 1e15.

Clement, J., & Cheng, A. (2011). Using analyses of public value orientations, attitudesand preferences to inform national forest planning in Colorado and Wyoming.Applied Geography, 31(2), 393e400.

Clement-Potter, J. (2006). Spatially explicit values on the Pike and San Isabel nationalforests in Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University (Ph.D. thesis).

Costanza, R., Wilson, M., Troy, A., Voinov, A., Liu, S., & D'Agostino, J. (2006). The valueof New Jersey's ecosystem services and natural capital (Vol. 13). Trenton, NewJersey: Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont and NewJersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Crossman, N. D., Burkhard, B., Nedkov, S., Willemen, L., Petz, K., Palomo, I., et al.(2013). A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. EcosystemServices, 4, 4e14.

DEPIdDepartment of Environmental and Primary Industries. (2013). VictorianCrown land area statement. Available from http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/199068/FactSheet_CrownLandVictoria_20130821FINAL.pdf Accessed 22.04.14.

De Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges inintegrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning,management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260e272.

Dudley, N. (2008). In Guidelines for applying protected area management categories.IUCN.

Egoh, B., Drakou, E. G., Dunbar, M. B., Maes, J., & Willemen, L. (2012). Indicators formapping ecosystem services: A review. EUR 25456 EN. Luxembourg: PublicationsOffice of the European Union.

Fagerholm, N., K€ayhk€o, N., Ndumbaro, F., & Khamis, M. (2012). Community stake-holders' knowledge in landscape assessments e mapping indicators for land-scape services. Ecological Indicators, 18, 421e433.

Fraser, I., & Chisholm, T. (2000). Conservation or cultural heritage? Cattle grazing inthe Victoria Alpine National Park. Ecological Economics, 33(1), 63e75.

Geoscience Australia. (2014). Land tenure. Available from http://www.ga.gov.au/education/geoscience-basics/land-tenure.html Accessed 28.04.14.

Goodchild, M. F. (2007). Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography.GeoJournal, 69(4), 211e221.

Gorte, R., Hardy Vincent, C., Hanson, A., & Rosenblum, M. (2012). Federal landownership: Overview and data. Congressional Research Service Report forCongress 7-5700. Washington DC, USA.

Harmon, D., & Putney, A. (Eds.). (2003). The full value of parks: from Economics to theintangible. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Ives, C., & Kendal, D. (2013). Values and attitudes of the urban public towards peri-urban agricultural land. Land Use Policy, 34, 80e90.

IUCN e International Union for the Conservation of Nature. (1994). Guidelines forprotected area management categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Commissionon Parks and Protected Areas.

Loomis, J., Kent, P., Strange, L., Fausch, K., & Covich, A. (2000). Measuring the totaleconomic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin:results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics, 33(1), 103e117.

Margules, C. R., Nicholls, A. O., & Pressey, R. L. (1988). Selecting networks of reservesto maximise biological diversity. Biological Conservation, 43(1), 63e76.

Margules, C. R., & Pressey, R. L. (2000). Systematic conservation planning. Nature,405(6783), 243e253.

Martínez-Harms, M. J., & Balvanera, P. (2012). Methods for mapping ecosystemservice supply: a review. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, EcosystemServices & Management, 8(1e2), 17e25.

MA (Millennium Assessment). (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being: A frame-work for assessment. Washington D.C: Island Press.

Mckercher, B. (1996). Differences between tourism and recreation in parks. Annalsof Tourism Research, 23(3), 563e575.

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Da Fonseca, G. A., & Kent, J. (2000).Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403(6772), 853e858.

NRCM e Natural Resource Council of Maine. (2014). Public land ownership by state.Available at http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdfAccessed 28.04.14.

Pressey, R. L., Johnson, I. R., & Wilson, P. D. (1994). Shades of irreplaceability: to-wards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goal. Biodiversity &Conservation, 3(3), 242e262.

Pressey, R. L., Humphries, C. J., Margules, C. R., Vane-Wright, R. I., & Williams, P. H.(1993). Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection.Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 8(4), 124e128.

Rambaldi, G., Kyem, P., McCall, M., & Weiner, D. (2006). Participatory spatial in-formation management and communication in developing countries. EJISDC,25, 1e9.

Schlossberg, M., & Shuford, E. (2005). Delineating ‘public’ and ‘participation’ inPPGIS. URISA Journal, 16(1), 15e26.

Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: a literaturereview and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96,491e507.

Smith, P. G., & Theberge, J. B. (1986). A review of criteria for evaluating natural areas.Environmental Management, 10(6), 715e734.

Tyrv€ainen, L., M€akinen, K., & Schipperjn, J. (2007). Tools for mapping social values ofurban woodlands and other green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(1),5e19.

van Riper, C. J., Kyle, G. T., Sutton, S. G., Barnes, M., & Sherrouse, B. C. (2012).Mapping outdoor recreationists' perceived social values for ecosystem servicesat Hinchinbrook Island National Park, Australia. Applied Geography, 35, 164e173.

WDPA. (2014). World database on protected areas. Available from http://www.wdpa.org/resources/statistics/2013_MDG_Regional_and_global_stats_Indicator_7_6.xlsx. Last Accessed 19.04.14.